Talk:Kielce pogrom

Evidence of Soviet involvement

An analysis of sources:

• Krzysztof Kąkolewski

• Our article says, Kąkolewski was a Polish author, life-long scholar, investigative journalist considered the pillar of the Polish school of reportage, as well as dramatist and screenwriter. Quite a description but being a historian is not one of them.

• Tadeusz Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust

• Not usable. Lambasted by two specialists; the sole admiration is from Cienciala who is a noted scholar but not an expert in the domain.

• Anne Applebaum

• Pop-historians; seriously?

• A primary source from IPN.

• ?

• Aleksander Wat

• Our article says, Wat was a Polish poet, writer, art theoretician, memorist, and one of the precursors of the Polish futurism movement in the early 1920s, considered to be one of the more important Polish writers of the mid 20th century. Undoubtedly a polymath but not a historian.

• Stanisław Krajewski

• Our article says, Krajewski is a Polish philosopher, mathematician, writer, and activist of the Jewish minority in Poland. Admirable but not a historian.

• Jan Śledzianowski

• The pl.wiki bio (Google Translate) says, Śledzianowski was a Polish Roman Catholic priest of the Diocese of Kielce, sociologist, theologian, and professor of theological sciences. None of these make Śledzianowski a historian.

• Michael Checinski

• The pl.wiki bio (Google Translate) says, Checinski was an officer of the PRL military counterintelligence. [..] He worked for the RAND Corporation and George C. Marshall European Center For Security Studies. Some nat-sec guy; not a historian. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What does Jan Grabowski — one of the most acclaimed historians in the field — say?

The theme of Polish innocence resurfaces in the Wikipedia article on the July 1946 Kielce pogrom. The deadliest pogrom in postwar Europe, this event claimed the lives of 42 Polish Jews, the majority Holocaust survivors, when a Polish mob enraged by tales of ritual murder attacked their neighbors. Misleadingly, over a fifth of the Wikipedia article comprises a subsection entitled ‘Evidence of Soviet Involvement,’ which suggests that the Kielce pogrom was somehow planned by the Soviets. This theory has been roundly rejected by all serious scholars and today finds an audience only among fringe Polish nationalists and conspiracy theorists wishing to prove that Communist Soviets, not Polish antisemitic masses, bore responsibility for the massacre.

When the topic is as controversial as this, attracting fringe crackpots, policy guides us to use the highest quality sources which, in this context, equates to works by academic historians. Instead, we have a travesty. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Who are these "fringe crackpots" you're referring to? Anne Applebaum is about as maintstream and reliable as it gets. Volunteer Marek 20:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement that we restrict ourselves to the work of academic historians. Even if we accept that it means we should be using academic sources there is no logic to limiting it to historians (why exclude political scientists, sociologists, etc). Thats not how policy guides us. Anne Applebaum for example is generally reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Who among the above is a "political scientist" or "sociologist"? Obviously, I did not mean to imply that historians — in the narrow sense of the word — have the sole claim over the TRUTH. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The one who you yourself labeled as a "sociologist" perhaps? Volunteer Marek 20:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope because the label is unsourced :-) On a serious note, you need to show that Śledzianowski is considered as a sociologist — than a theologian — by peers. And then establish his repute that will allow his narrative to stand on an equal footing with that of Grabowski, Tokarska-Bakir et al. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

So why did you call him a sociology? And is there an established hierarchy here where someone is "first a sociologist, than a thelogian"? I don't think that's how that works. It's just interdisciplinary. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

They didn't, its a quote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok, you didn't seem to disagree with that part though. And btw, I have no opinion on this person or their reliability, I'm just wondering where these criteria are coming from. Is there a wikipedia policy you could link which discusses which one comes first, sociologisticism or theologisticism? Maybe sociologist see it one way and theologists another. Anyway, it'd be useful to know which actual policy you're basing all this on. Volunteer Marek 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Common sense and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - which guides us to not use a theologian or a poet or a mathematician or a lit-critic to push a narrative that has been characterized by half-a-dozen acclaimed (academic) historians, specializing in the topic, as "conspiracy theories" or like. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess "common sense" might cover poets or mathematicians (I'm assuming photographers too) but why not theologians who are also sociologists? Volunteer Marek 21:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Replied below. You have a simple task — show him as equally reliable as two of the most acclaimed scholars in the field to restore part of the now-deleted section. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Good, because that is what I thought you meant and I was like "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?" IMO Applebaum can be used here, with attribution of course if people feel its necessary. I do think you're largely right about the rest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. On restrospection, I should have phrased better - historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and many other disciplines make the cut! But, not theologists or music-scholars for the case in hand! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Will you also allow philosophers? Volunteer Marek 20:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please bring sources if you wish to challenge my deletion; that would perhaps be a better utilization of your time. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are replying to. I'm asking if after having accepted some scholarly disciplines and rejected others, you will allow Wikipedia editors to use philosophers in this topic area? I think I can decide how I spend my time for myself but thanks for that suggestion. Volunteer Marek 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

What is "this topic area"? My comments are limited to the niche topic area of "Soviet involvement in the Kielce pogrom", an erstwhile sub-section of this article; ofcourse, there are philosophers who have contributed to our understanding of the Holocaust etc. and are reliable sources. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so if I'm reading that correctly you will you allow Wikipedians to use philosophers as sources in the topic area of "Soviet involvement in the Kielce pogrom". Can you please specify what policy any of this is based on? Also, since we all seem to be agreed that Anne Applebaum isn't a "fringe crackpot" (sic) and that sociologists are acceptable as sources, maybe you should restore them. Volunteer Marek 21:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be led to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? No, I will not restore the "sociologist/theologian". To reiterate, [Please] establish [Jan Śledzianowski]'s repute — as a sociologist — that will allow his narrative to stand on an equal footing with that of Grabowski, Tokarska-Bakir et al.TrangaBellam (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What is this "context" that matters here? All I see is that you personally decided that if a scholar is a "sociologist" then you will allow the use of them as a source. But if they're a "sociologist" AND a "theologian" then you will not allow others to use them. And then you cite "common sense" to support this criteria. This isn't about "equal footing" of anything - it's a genuine concern with what general criteria are used to determine reliability. (and my suggestion you restore some authors was a reference to Anne Applebaum (not a "fringe crackpot") and Jan Gross (sociologist) both of whom you removed) Volunteer Marek 08:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If you do not seek to restore a third-tier source from a theologian/sociologist, why were you waxing eloquent about him all the while? This is not a meta discussion, VM. The particulars matter.

Did I raise any issue about the reliability of Jan Gross? There was no way to maintain a standalone section with only the last paragraph! Which, in itself, was a misinterpretation of Gross' arguments and slyly framed as a coattail to a bunch of fringe revisionists. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I waxed anything or anyone, eloquently or not and certainly not Sledziowski. And yes you did raise the issue of Gross by first excluding all sociologist from the set of sources you were willing to allow. Then backtracked but decided that a sociologist was ok only if they weren't also a theologian. There is a bigger issue here and that's simply that "on equal footing" (whatever that actually means) with Grabowski and Klein is actually NOT a requirement for a source to be reliable. In fact, reading WP:RS in detail I don't see either one of them mentioned there at all. So again the same question returns - what criteria exactly are being used to establish reliability? Because it doesn't seem to be the ones actually articulated at WP:RS. You also never explained who exactly these "fringe crackpots" were that you referred to earlier. Volunteer Marek 09:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Right after HEB enquired about my use of the word "historian", I elucidated to them that I had meant to cover all relevant disciplines in the context of the issue, including sociology, anthropology, etc. That was before you arrived at the thread, so I won't engage with your bad-faith arguments and commentary about how I have backtracked.

I did not have any issues with Gross. If you see carefully, Gross was the only source in the section about whom I had nothing adverse to say. My only opposition is to the misrepresentation of Gross' broader arguments and bad-faith use in support of a set of fringe revisionists.

When domain experts like Grabowski, Tokarska-Bakir, et al. characterise a specific interpretation of events as a "conspiracy theory", an unusually strong word, FALSEBALANCE comes into play for accommodating contrarian narratives. This necessitates sourcing contrarian narratives from equally acclaimed historians (again, in the broad sense of the word). Now, you might believe that the sources, which I removed, are of comparable expertise. That is, they are all experts in the domain or Grabowski and Tokarska-Bakir are no experts; hence, there is no need to privilege Tokarska-Bakir's argument wrt others. Such being the case, please go to RSN.

Barring Applebaum and Gross, I will classify all of the removed sources under the purview of the particular term.

I won't engage with you further. Have the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW, Michael Checinski, that you dismiss as "some nat-sec guy" was a Holocaust survivor, held a PhD, taught at University of Jerusalem and Harvard This information is also in pl.wiki bio. You quoted this part: He worked for the RAND Corporation and George C. Marshall European Center For Security Studies.. Here is the full part: He worked at the University of Jerusalem. He then emigrated to the United States, where he worked at Harvard University and for Rand Corporation (1976-1981). He then worked for George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. I'm not sure why the full quote was not provided. In particular if, for some reason, you choose to skip the middle of a quotation, please use ellipsis (...).

(but since the refs to Checinski don't give page numbers I would suggest verifying everything first) Volunteer Marek 09:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

With regard to the discussion on Anne Applebaum here above, note that she has been selectively quoted if not misunderstood in the article. From this text [1]:

In Kielce, the police and security services not only failed to prevent the riot but actually joined the mob, along with the army: police participation had unleashed the crowd violence (...) In Neither case is there any archival evidence of more careful advance planning, let alone international coordination, as some have alleged. Though Soviet agents and advisers were present in both cities – a Soviet NKVD officer in Kilece was even present at the riots – and despite the fact that these pogroms all took place in the same time period, it isn’t possible, so far, to trace any direct Soviet involvement in their organisation

... the only bit that was taken and quoted [2] in the article is the one where she says

a Soviet NKVD officer in Kilece was even present at the riots.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, why am I not surprised? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Gitz: That is not quite true. The edit summary read: "Cite lack of evidence that Soviets staged it. Mention near contemporaneous Miskolc pogrom". So the intent was in part to provide a reference for the unsourced statement "None has been proven by the post-communist investigation", which was already present in the article. I don't find that edit by User:Anders.Warga problematic in itself. --Andreas JN466 20:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Recent scholarship

• A discussion about the events in Kielce is ongoing and actually from the very beginning it has been living proof of how post-war politics of memory works. Analyzing the Kielce pogrom, various variants of provocation were considered; the alleged agents provocateurs were as follows: Polish communists, the Security Offce, the Soviet authorities, and so on. Apart from high church offcials, this approach was taken by Stanisław Mikołajczyk and it is still popular in various modifcations. The investigation by Poland’s National Remembrance Institute (IPN), the relevant texts of which were published in 2006 (Kamiński and Żaryn 2006), however, did not confrm the conspiracy hypothesis, supporting the concept of a bottom-up pogrom.
  — Chmielewska, Katarzyna (2021), Hopfinger, Maryla; Żukowski, Tomasz (eds.), "Alternative Narratives of the 1940s Versus the Politics of Memory", The Holocaust Bystander in Polish Culture, 1942-2015: The Story of Innocence, Cham: Springer International Publishing, p. 82, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-66408-4_3, ISBN 978-3-030-66408-4

• Translation of Joanna Tokarska-Bakir's acclaimed monograph on the pogrom is to be published by Cornell University Press in November but till then, we can depend on this excellent interview and, of course, the Polish original.
• I had read a decent article by Blatman on the subject but cannot retrieve it now.

Ah, ok, so Znak is a reliable source. Volunteer Marek 22:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Towards a new version

Fwiw, this is a notable conspiracy theory and belongs at the article. I welcome others to draft a fresh section on the topic using high-quality sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion as to what exactly are reliable "high-quality" sources given some of the comments in the discussion above. Not sure why, since we have WP:RS etc. but apparently "high-quality" can mean various things to various people. Volunteer Marek 21:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We should (as I say on my userpage) start by identifying a few of the best sources about the Kielce pogrom (same for all the pages that need TNT). Levivich (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, any suggestions? Above User:TrangaBellam used "Common sense and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS" to justify excluding some sources. Ok. Common sense and the, um, context, would suggest that the Grabowski and Klein source should not be used (at least not for now) since there's, um, "context" here. That context being Icewhiz. You know, the guy who was banned for "using inappropriate sources in BLPs", made "negative edits to BLPs", "post(ed) negative claims or speculations about living scholars" [3] (I think "fringe crackpots" would qualify under this), "made inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments" [4] and " inappropriately and falsely" tried to link editors to Holocaust denial [5]. And who's also indefinetly site-banned for harassment and abuse of multiple Wikipedians. The same Icewhiz whom that article refers to as "defender of historical accuracy".

So perhaps it'd be best to let the Arbitration Committee do their case before we start using G&K as source - and not apparently just using THAT as a source, but also using it as some kind of holy scripture on what OTHER sources are reliable or not (they're right about some being unreliable, but many of those aren't even used on Wikipedia). Let the Arbitrators arbitrate and perhaps we can all get back together later and revisit this question after the case is concluded. Volunteer Marek 22:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Please talk about nothing on this page except the content of this article. No icewhiz, no arbcom, no editor conduct, just content. We have lots of other pages for the other stuff. Levivich (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of unavoidable if someone is trying to use the Grabowski and Klein article not just as a reliable source but even as some final judgement on what other sources are reliable. But hey, I'm all for it. Volunteer Marek 22:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Request an injunction from the ArbCom on any use of the Grabowski paper and on success, I will comply. Do note that I have not used the paper to write anything about the motives of Wikipedia editors etc. Btw, Grabowski has made similar claims in other peer-reviewed media excluding the Wikipedia stuff; if you take much umbrage, I can replace the cite. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not even the question of whether G&K are reliable. The issue is that their article is being treated as if it was our WP:RS policy itself - to determine whether OTHER sources are reliable or not. Which is actually contrary to WP:NPOV. Volunteer Marek 06:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Some most-recent, best-authors, best-publishers, about Kielce pogrom, that I can find:

1. Bender, Sara (2019). In Enemy Land: The Jews of Kielce and the Region, 1939-1946. Academic Studies Press. ISBN 978-1-61811-872-1. OCLC 1108570161.
2. Tokarska-Bakir, Joanna (2018). "'The present causes of past effects': The Background Beliefs of the Kielce Pogrom (4 July 1946)". The Medieval Roots of Antisemitism. Routledge. ISBN 9781351120821.
3. Cichopek-Gajraj, Anna; Dynner, Glenn (2021). "Pogroms in Modern Poland, 1918–1946". In Avrutin, Eugene M.; Bemporad, Elissa (eds.). Pogroms: A Documentary History. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190060084.003.0010. ISBN 978-0-19-762929-1. OCLC 1248601302.
4. Apor, Péter; Kende, Tamás; Lônčíková, Michala; Săndulescu, Valentin (2019-11-02). "Post-World War II anti-Semitic pogroms in East and East Central Europe: collective violence and popular culture". European Review of History. 26 (6): 913–927. doi:10.1080/13507486.2019.1611744. ISSN 1350-7486.
5. "The Kielce Pogrom: A Blood Libel Massacre of Holocaust Survivors". Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
6. "Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland After Liberation". Yad Vashem. Retrieved 2023-03-01.

The last two are obvious low hanging fruit. In addition to these sources, the bibliographies of these sources will have others. Anything about Kielce pogrom that is cited by all of these sources is probably a major work on the topic. I haven't examined their bibliographies closely but just from skimming them, I saw some obvious ones, like Zimmerman's Contested Memories and Gross's Fear, but my guess is we don't really need to go that far back (2000s), because there are ample more-recent sources available. Levivich (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Tokarska-Bakir and Yad Vashem are already used in the article. The other ones are also good suggestions. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the sources by Tokarska-Bakir and Yad Vashem alraedy used in the article are different than the sources by them I listed above. I don't think any of these 6 sources are in the article yet. Levivich (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, but if I'm not mistaken, the main point of contention is the description of the conspiracy theory. The general course of events and who participated etc. is not subject of dispute, right? Volunteer Marek 22:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the entire article could be improved by rewriting it using the latest, best sources (same for all articles). Levivich (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If there are no problems in the rest of the article, why rewrite it? And if there are, point them out and yeah, let's improve it, by rewriting the relevant parts if necessary.

As far as "same for all articles" goes, it's not clear what that is referring to. What "all articles"? Volunteer Marek 22:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if there are or aren't problems in the rest of the article. That's unknowable until after the "best" sources are identified and reviewed. To the extent that what's in the article now differs from what's in, e.g., the sources I listed above (and any others that are of similar quality--best/most-recent scholarship), we should revise the article to match the sources. By "all articles" I mean all articles on Wikipedia--they could all be improved using the same method, it's not just this article. Levivich (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You think all articles on Wikipedia should be completely rewritten? Volunteer Marek 06:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Only the ones I've read. Levivich (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

And I think User:TrangaBellam *just* removed Gross. Volunteer Marek 22:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Who was misrepresented just like Applebaum. Wow much. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: the narrative in the removed section was definitely undue in the then-current form: [6]. I looked at the article a while back but never got around to editing it, it's good that there's a fresh discussion. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that section was way too long. It had like ten different authors, so I think that back like ten years ago it was just a couple of sentences but over the years various editors kept adding snippets to it until it got way too big. Volunteer Marek 05:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• When I checked this page after reading the article by G&K (and I am not familiar with this subject), I had the following question. Was this pogrom organized by security or other services of Polish communist government? The participation of Polish soldiers and police seems to clearly indicate that, but I am not sure. We do know that practically all pogroms were not really "spontaneous" but to some degree organized. If the answer is "yes", then we all know that the communist Polish security services were directly controlled by the KGB (or whatever was their name at that time). As about the section, it is obviously sourced, and some of these sources are pretty good, by experts, not just RS. Hence such section should exist here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Given the quality of your question, my suggestion will be to become familiar with the subject.

  That said, you wrote: some of these sources are pretty good, by experts, not just RS. Barring Applebaum and Gross — who were fatally misrepresented — who are these "experts" from the erstwhile version? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• This is easy to check:

1. This (ref by Levivich), Among the defendants were the commander of the Kielce Office of the Security Service, Major Wladyslaw Sobczynski, and the Chief of Police, Colonel Wiktor Kuznicki, as well as his deputy, Major Kazimierz Gwiazdowicz; of the three, only Kuznicki received a one year sentence, while the other two were acquitted.
2. This source (another one by Levivich) say "No Single Explanation", One thesis suggests that the communist party was responsible for the pogrom. According to this narrative, the Kielce pogrom was an orchestrated provocation by the Polish secret police and the Soviet NKVD. It was meant to distract the Poles from the falsified results of a referendum held shortly beforehand, that was seen as unofficially deciding that the Polish citizenry supported communism. It then say: According to another narrative, the ruling Polish Workers Party and Polish Socialist Party orchestrated the pogrom for propaganda purposes in order to compromise the opposition party and the armed anticommunist underground resistance., and so on.

• As of note, the source is Yad Vashem, and they list the NKVD version as a possible (although unproven) explanation, not a "theory has been roundly rejected by all serious scholars and today finds an audience only among fringe Polish nationalists and conspiracy theorists". And the scholarly books [7] seem to support Yad Vashem, saying that Soviet NKVD officers were present during this pogrom, but there is no direct evidence it was actually guided or organized by the NKVD. This is how that should be described on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  No, Yad Vashem does not say the NKVD version is "possible". They just say the theory exists. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Yad Vashem article also says There are several theories about why the Kielce pogrom took place, all of which are based on explanations much more complex than simple antisemitism or indiscriminate postwar lawlessness. It is beyond the scope of this article to examine them in depth; some remain highly controversial and have been written about at length, many in the sources cited here. By its own admission, it's not one of the best sources for the theories of causation (though still a good overview source for the topic as a whole). Levivich (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  And the particular scholarly book says:

  In Kielce, the police and security services not only failed to prevent the riot but actually joined the mob, along with the army: police participation had unleashed the crowd violence (...) In neither case is there any archival evidence of more careful advance planning, let alone international coordination, as some have alleged. Though Soviet agents and advisers were present in both cities – a Soviet NKVD officer in Kilece was even present at the riots – and despite the fact that these pogroms all took place in the same time period, it isn’t possible, so far, to trace any direct Soviet involvement in their organisation (...)

  In Internal debates the [communist state apparatus] recognized the riot as a sign their own weakness. In Kielce, the different branches of the security services had argued with one another, failed to obey orders, and lost control of a mob on July 4, after all, which was hardly evidence of their competence. In the wake of the riots, several local party leaders lost their jobs.

Your cherrypicking is obvious. The conspiracy theory is not about whether a few policemen partook in the riots or not. Get a grip. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, that is exactly what I referred to in my comment. The source says there is no "archival evidence". And yes, it also says: that "the police and security services not only failed to prevent the riot but actually joined the mob, along with the army: police participation had unleashed the crowd violence though Soviet agents and advisers were present in both cities – a Soviet NKVD officer in Kilece was even present at the riots..." and so on. Both sources (Yad Vashem and the book) imply say this could be actually organized by NKVD and Polish services but there is no direct proof of that. This is not even close to saying this is a conspiracy theory by "fringe Polish nationalists and conspiracy theorists". This is yet another unproven or at least highly debatable claim by G&K. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately or not, as editors, we are not allowed to synthesize sources and discover what they "imply". Or else, I can imply that the swift retribution that followed including a purge of the local party leaders and those in charge of the local police meant otherwise. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they do not "imply", but actually "say" it - as quoted above and can be found in linked sources (e.g. "No Single Explanation", "One thesis suggests..." etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It is your pleading that

[Applebaum] says this [pogrom] could be actually organized by NKVD and Polish services but there is no direct proof of that.

is an accurate summary of

In neither case is there any archival evidence of more careful advance planning, let alone international coordination, as some have alleged. Though Soviet agents and advisers were present in both cities – a Soviet NKVD officer in Kilece was even present at the riots – and despite the fact that these pogroms all took place in the same time period, it isn’t possible, so far, to trace any direct Soviet involvement in their organisation.

? Hope you have luck in convincing the community. That said, you might try reading this paper. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No. What I said above was NOT a summary of your selective quotation just above. That was based on reading both sources, i.e. based on several pages in the article by Yad Vashem and one page in the book. The book you linked to is not accessible online except abstracts. If it were accessible, I would check it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Your quote might be a summary of many things but at the very least, it ought to be a reasonable representation of my "selective quote", the only portion, where Applebaum discusses the nature of Soviet involvement?

As to the Yad Vashem source, I will repeat what Levivich says - (1) not a top-tier source, (2) by its own admission, not one of the best sources for the theories of causation, and (3) they do not discuss the merits and demerits of competing "theories" but speak of their existence. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources other than the article by G&K saying this is a dismissed conspiracy theory by "fringe Polish nationalists and conspiracy theorists"? Because if you do not, then such view by G&K is not a "majority view", but a personal opinion, to say this politely.My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to read the discussion, please. Did you consult this section? Did you read Joanna Tokarska-Bakir's acclaimed monograph on the pogrom? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you @TrangaBellam read it ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I am reading it but via the help of OCR + Google Translate. So, at a quite slow pace than usual. I managed to get a scan from a historian-friend; unfortunately, no digital version appears to be available for sale in my country. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Mostly off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, the Polish police and security forces took part in the pogrom as a matter of fact, and these security forces were controlled by Soviet NKVD. NKVD knew because it was present on the site. Did it plan this pogrom in advance for the reasons noted in the article by Yad Vashem? How any scholar can prove or disprove it without having access to KGB archives? These archives were never opened, and most documents have been destroyed. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC) You are not a historian (acc. to your u/p) and even if you were one, your original research does not matter. That said, your claim about the KGB archives being never opened is false; multiple successor states of Soviet Republic had opened their share of archives. Indeed IPN etc. frequently take aid from Belarussian archives ... I believe the destruction was mostly limited to the 70s. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC) You must be completely unfamiliar with this subject if you think that KGB archives were ever opened. I would recommend you reading this book [8] by Yevgenia Albats. She was a member of official Lev Ponomaryov commission who were given a temporary permission to access these files after the failed coup, but as soon as Gleb Yakunin get an access and published a couple of revelations, the committee was disbanded, and the archives were never open since then. What KGB actually did was feeding carefully selected documents (some of which might be a forgery) to a number of specifically selected people/historians who either had connections "on the top" or were trusted by the KGB/FSB. Yes, they have published what they were allowed to see. And no, they have destroyed a lot, maybe almost everything (that was described in many publications). This is huge subject. For example here a former Ukrainian security/KGB person describes how they destroyed "kompromat" on Ukrainian officials as not to allow Russian FSB to blackmail them, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) multiple successor states of Soviet Republic had opened their share of archives - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 et al. For a starter, I do not gain my knowledge solely from trade-press pop-history books and know atleast half-a-dozen academic historians who work in these areas. That said, I came to know that 1991 saw a wave of destruction on files pertaining to groups and individuals, esp. in the non-Baltic states. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, many former Soviet republics opened historical parts of such archives, but not Russia. In Russia, they fed a lot of alleged documents to researchers like Zemskov, perhaps to falsely claim later that they have opened their archives. Some others, like Edvard Radzinsky or Dmitri Volkogonov got access only to certain listed documents through their personal channels. Anything related to this event would be destroyed long time ago or kept as a top secret. But this is all off topic here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC) In addition, it is perfectly fine when a source implies something. This is something a source implies, not me. RS frequently imply something. My very best wishes (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Another one by Tokarska-Bakir (2011): "Cries of the Mob in the Pogroms in Rzeszów (June 1945), Cracow (August 1945), and Kielce (July 1946) as a Source for the State of Mind of the Participants", https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325411398916 (Cited by 15 in Google Scholar)

Another one by Prazmowska (2002): The Kielce Pogrom 1946 and the Emergence of Communist Power in Poland https://doi.org/10.1080/713999953 (Cited by 9 in Google Scholar) Andreas JN466 20:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked 2nd RS. It describes everything in great detail. It says, among other things, that "Lavrenty Beria, the Soviet Commissar for Internal Affairs was aware of the situation in Poland. In an official NKVD report written for the benefit of the top leadership of the Soviet Union on 20 October 1945, Beria painted a disturbing picture of the prevalence of antisemitism in Poland.", and so on. Overall, however, this source, does not provide any indications NKVD would be directly involved. Yes, they knew and possibly used Polish antisemitism to their political advantage. But who knows? They started their own antisemitic campaign right after WWII and later planned to deport all Jews to Siberia, to Birobidzhansky District. Of course it appears that the Ministry of Public Security (Poland) was established and "curated" by infamous Ivan Serov who organizes ethnic cleansing of minorities in the USSR, but this is not a proof of anything. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. So, maybe, you begin to see how and why the now-deleted section made little sense from a perspective of NPOV and went against mainstream scholarship? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. In fact, this source say the same as the article by Yad Vashem and Applebaum, i.e. NKVD knew, was present during the pogrom, but there is no evidence they planned it. Old text you removed was saying this as well. It did not significantly and intentionally misrepresented anything, and it was sourced. Was it poorly written? Yes, absolutely. I would definitely rewrite it. But I usually avoid editing any pages that became a subject of significant disagreements. If others want to spend their time in such way, this is their choice. My very best wishes (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, @Paul Siebert will have something to say. I offer no comments. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

So far, I found no evidences that Gross (cited in the section that was deleted by you) discusses the Soviet involvement in the pogrom. It seems all good sources cited in this section just ignore this issue, and only poor quality sources discuss it. Per WP:NPOV we should avoid false balance. If Applebaum, Gross and few other good authors cited in this section says nothing about Soviet involvement in orchestrating that pogrom, the section should be removed. So far, I found no indication that Gross or Applebaum discuss this issue. If I am correct, then the section should not be restored. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked Tokarska-Bakir (2011), and this source mentions the role of "Soviet advisors" in the same context as the alleged role of "Zionists". I think if we want to discuss controversies of that kind, we should combine them in one section and discuss as "conspiracy theories". Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Prazmowska (2002) says the following. First, she provides list of sources who say about Soviet involvement in the ref 4:

"Michael ChŒciæski, Poland. Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism (New York: Karz-Cohl Publishing, 1982); Krystyna Kersten, Polacy, flydzi, Komunizm 1939–68. Anatomia pó‡prawd (Warszawa: Niezale¿na Oficyna Wydawnicza, 1992), pp.89–142; Stanis‡aw Meducki, ‘The Pogrom in Kielce on 4 July 1946’, Polin, 9 (1996). These are examples of authors who suggest that the Communists either directly caused the pogrom or stood to benefit from it. In contrast see D. Engel, ‘Pattern of Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1944–1946’, Yad Vashem Studies, 26 (1998); Bo¿ena Szaynok, Pogrom flydów w Kielcach 4 Lipca 1946 (Wroc‡aw: Wydawnictwo Bellona, 1992); Alina Ca‡a and Helena Datner- piewnik (eds.), Dzieje flydów w Polsce 1944–68 (Warszawa: flydowski Instytut Historyczny, 1997) are more cautious in identifying the reasons for the pogrom. These authors have considered both immediate and long-term problems which account for a wave of pogroms in Poland at the time. An interesting contribution to out understanding of the debates which were taking place between the organizations representing Jewish survivors in Poland and the authorities has been made by Icchak Cukierman ‘Antek’, Nadmiar pamiŒci (Siedem owych lat. Wspomnienia 1939–1946) (Warszawa: PWN, 2000 originally published in Hebrew as Szewa haszanim hahejn)."

Second, her own conclusion is that the Soviets had insufficient control over this area to be capable of orchestrating that pogrom.

Third, she summarised Gross views (which she believed are superficial), and, according to her, Gross says nothing about a role of Soviet authorities in "orchestrating" the pogrom, but he discusses the reason of a relatively soft treatment of the perpetrators (because, according to him, antisemits were seen as potentially instrumental in future). That reinforces my impression that Gross does not discuss Soviet role in the outbreak of the pogrom. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I am reading the long and detailed account of the pogrom in Gross's book. Later I will open a thread on a point worth discussing (re, section "Attempts to blame Polish anti-communist underground"). In the meantime, I can assure you that from Gross's account there is no evidence of Soviet involvement in the pogrom, which is indeed implicitly but clearly ruled out - the hypothesis is not even mentioned, let alone investigated, but is clearly incompatible with his reconstruction of the events. The removed section on Soviet involvement, however, did not misrepresent Gross's views. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It did. The section's title was "Evidence of Soviet involvement", and the last para said that Gross "offers a somewhat different and more nuanced interpretation". That is a direct misinterpretation, because he provided nether a nuanced nor non-nuanced version of Soviet involvement in the pogrom: he analyzes the reaction of Communist authorities, but says nothing about Soviet involvement. The very fact Gross included into this section gives an undue weight to the version about Soviet involvement. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, OK, this is correct: the phrase "more nuanced interpretation" and the placement of the paragraph in the section on Soviet involvement misrepresent the source and mislead the reader. Note that Gross unequivocally rules out the theory of Soviet involvement not only by describing the reaction of the Polish Communist Party, but also by providing a detailed account of how events unfolded ("The breakdown of law enforcement") that is incompatible with such a theory. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Reaction of the Communist party

I have just added a paragraph on the Communist party's reaction based on Gross's book "Fear". No doubt the language is defective - please, improve (or remove if you don't like it - sob sob) [9]. Anyway, I was wondering if somebody could please verify the source quoted to support the section "Attempts to blame Polish anti-communist underground", that is, Kamiński, Łukasz; Żaryn, Jan (2006). Reflections on the Kielce Pogrom. Institute of National Remembrance. ISBN 8360464235. What Gross says is not incompatible with Kamiński-Żaryn 2006, but I'd like to understand how the two books connect. Do the "reactionary elements" of society identify with the Polish independence underground in Party's parlance? I guess so. And do Kamiński-Żaryn provide an account of the subsequent reactions within the Party, as repored by Gross? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

"Relations between non-Jewish Poles and Jews were already strained..." should be changed to: "Relations between Jewish and non-Jewish Poles were already strained" Mlcred (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cherrell410 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

RS CHECK: Gross being a child of a Jewish parent tied to the Stalinist regime?

Unfortunately TrangaBella is engaging in edit warring and a silencing campaign right now. I am reinstating the following complaint that is also food for thought. Just thought this statement would be of interest here. Grabowski may also be subject to this conflict of interest.

Real image that might be of interest:

This is NOT poorly referenced. I would welcome NOT attempting to censor dialogue. The image is real, the people there (among them Adam Michnik vel Szechter) have people in their family who worked for the Stalinist regime. pl:Zygmunt Gross was a party member during Stalinism and onward. Galehautt (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain the conflict of interest? The picture you posted is a well-known photograph of the Komandosi group. How is that proof of the conflict of interest? Grabowski wasn't related to them in anyway afaik. Marcelus (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The conflict of interest may be such: (1) inclination to whitewash Stalinism due to ties to the regime which existed before the deck got reshuffled in 1956, at the same time, (2) feeling unjustifiably purged as a result of yet another reshuffling in 1968 causing enhancement of nationalist (Jewish) feelings and enhancement of bias against the Polish nation which the subject considers guilty at large

All this causing a portrayal of the Kielce pogrom as above Galehautt (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, hasn't Grabowski been funded by Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor, the leader of an organization named European Jewish Congress and at the same time one of the most trusted pals of KGB-man Putin? Galehautt (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)